Posts Tagged ‘Copenhagen 2009’

World Exclusive: CIA 1974 Document Reveals Emptiness of AGW Scares, Closes Debate On Global Cooling Consensus (And More…)

2009/12/03 60 comments

An eye-opening “global cooling consensus” CIA document dated 1974 has just been re-discovered in the British Library by Yours Truly and is extensively mentioned today in the (printed) pages of The Spectator (UK) and Il Foglio (Italy).

(updated 20091203 – 1042am GMT – the (suitably degraded) scan of the Spectator article is at the bottom of this blog)

(updated 20091203 – 1105am GMT – HOLD IT-THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE SCRIBD LINK!! – ANOTHER ONE WILL BE PROVIDED SHORTLY – the CIA document is now online thanks to Guido Guidi and Climate Monitor)

(updated 20091203 – 1143am GMTthe PDF of the CIA document is now available online thanks to Guido Guidi and Climate Monitor)

A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems” will make quite an embarrassing reading, especially for:

  • the most obdurate catastro-warmists (when they will notice that almost all AGW scares are a search-and-replace job from “cooling” to “warming”), and
  • the history deniers fixated on ‘demonstrating’ that a scientific consensus about Global Cooling in the 1970’s were a ‘myth'(*)

And there is more (much more), from ever-improving climate models promising to become good in a few years’ time to the unsettling apparent ease with which Government agencies then (as now) could get scientists to agree on whatever they needed them to agree on.

Nobody aware of the CIA document’s contents should be able to avoid a good chuckle after reading any of the current AGW reports on famine, starvation, refugee crises, floods, droughts, crop and monsoon failures, and all sorts of extreme weather phenomena; on climate-related major economic problems around the world; on Africans getting in climate troubles first; and so on and so forth.

Why? Because it is all too clear that those scares cannot be real, since they have already been mentioned verbatim in all their dramatic effect, but about Global Cooling.

The whole lot of them, they are just empty threats, instruments of doom-and-gloom policy manipulation with no relation to reality.

It is deeply ironic that it takes a 35-year-old document, available on the web so far only in title, to show the absolute vacuity of the vast majority of pre-COP15 reports and studies. It is time to ditch everything we hear about collapsing ice sheets, disappearing glaciers, species extinctions, and each and every “it’s worse than we thought” report by “scientists”.

It is time to become climate adults.

As I wrote for The Spectator:

This might be the most important lesson of the 1974 report on global cooling: that we need to grow up, separate climatology from fear, and recognise – much as it pains politicians and scientists – that our understanding of how climate changes remains in its infancy.

(stay tuned for the full text of the Spectator article, and the PDF of the PDF of the CIA document)

(*) Anybody thinking about Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck’s largely mistitled “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Volume 89, Issue 9, September 2008, pp 1325-1337)? Well, think again after reading this little gem of theirs:

By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood

As I wrote a little more than a year ago: “Widely accepted”: check. “Global cooling”: check.. There was a global cooling consensus among scientists, at least up to 1974. And it went on to appear in Newsweek, The Washington Post, The New York Times and many more media outlets around the world, at least up to 1976.


UPDATED: This is the scanned Spectator article

The CIA's 'global cooling' files (title)

The CIA's 'global cooling' files (text)

Onslaught Of Climate Disaster News Expected Between Now And December 2009

2009/05/04 7 comments

Between 7 and 18 December 2009, at the Bella Centre in Copenhagen, Denmark, delegates from the world over are expected to approve some kind of “Son of Kyoto”. In UN jargon it is going to be called the “United Nations Climate Change Conference – Conference of Parties number 15”, that is COP15.

A quick look at the websites about COP15 will reveal the level of organization behind it. But nobody would like to put up with so much work only to see the Conference fizzle away without a decision being actually taken.

The challenge to design a “Son of Kyoto” is recognized by all. And the solution is…the delegates will be put under pressure enormous enough to convince them.

The motto will be “Sign, or else!”.

Expect therefore an onslaught of climate-related disaster news between now and December 2009. No melting glacier will be forgotten, no summer temperature will be taken as normal or cold, no semi-idiotic model-based forecast of the climate in 2050 will be left out of Nature magazine.

The Queen will talk about climate change, the Pope will talk about climate change. Stunts will be performed in London and New York to highlight the cause of climate change. The Catlin polar expedition will try hard to take pictures of a melting arctic landscape perhaps from the plane that will carry them back home. New temperature reconstructions will surface just at the right time to confirm Michael Mann has always been right, even when he was wrong.

Scientific American, The Economist, The New Yorker will join up in the calls to “act now“. Even the WSJ will timidly join the chorus, just in case it does become a good political point. Football (soccer) will be enlisted to support the cause.

Corals will start bleaching again, and every tropical Atlantic cloud and wind will be classified as a category-2 hurricane. Intriguing new relationships between climate change and earthquakes are going to become big news, just like the in hindsight the “obvious” link between global warming and swine flu.

Unprecedented numbers of charities will jump up the climate bandwagon, and ever more absurdist claims about the consequences of global warming will surface, including a humankind-busting imbalance in the ratio of girls vs. boys, and an increase in the usage of paracetamol and aspirin.

Finally, anybody showing any doubt will be positively ignored, or otherwise described as having the good morals of a pedophile (pedophiles molest innocent children, climate deniers molest innocent Earth,  the syllogism is just too obvious…)


The only positive news is that whatever pressure we are going to see the buildup of, and whatever agreement will be reached at COP15, Joe Romm will be unhappy. Of that, we can be more or less certain.

Science Vs. Science-Based Fantasy Embroidery

2009/03/16 4 comments

Andy Revkin’s increasingly more interesting “Dot Earth” blog quotes “Yadvinder Malhi, an Oxford University biologist who is focused on the Amazon and climate” questioning the Amazon-is-doomed “findings presented at the meeting” and decrying “the resulting media coverage“:

(Mahli) I must say I find it frustrating that the gloomiest take on news gets such a big profile. This is based on one model, and that model has flaws, especially its temperature sensitivity that seems too great (David Galbraith’s work), and its rainfall that seems to low

Revkin and Mahli should be not surprised a bit, as the embroidery of fact-based hypotheses (if not outright fantasies) and their presentation as “the latest science” is a popular endeavor (=gets the biggest profile) and not just in climate circles. For example, here’s the decrying of the equivalent behavior, about Pompeii:

Beard, a classics professor at Cambridge University, takes cheeky, undisguised delight in puncturing the many fantasies and misconceptions that have grown up around Pompeii — sown over the years by archaeologists and classicists no less than Victorian novelists and makers of “sword and sandal” film extravaganzas.

While many scholars build careers through increasingly elaborate reconstructions of the ancient world, Beard consistently stresses the limits of our knowledge, the precariousness of our constructs and the ambiguity or contradiction inherent in many of our sources. “There is hardly a shred of evidence for any of it” serves as her battle cry, and it’s a noble one.

The Good And The Bad Reporting About Rising Sea Levels

2009/03/13 3 comments

Good: “How high is the sea rising?” (March 12, in German, Sueddeutsche Zeitung), where journalist Axel Bojanowski illustrates the not-so-worrying, middle-of-the-road and worst scenarios (respectively, with a rise in sea levels by 2100 of 18-30cm, 95cm and 2m). Tellingly, Bojanowski writes: “The problem is, all scenarios are based on good arguments”.

Bad: “Sea rise ‘to exceed projections’” (March 10, in English, BBC News), where journalist David Shukman goes for big scary numbers (a metre or more by 2100, 600million people potentially affected) and a collection of adjectives in comparative form (higher, faster, hotter). There is no indication whatsoever about any scientist convinced of lower estimates.

Bad: “Copenhagen summit urges immediate action on climate change” (March 12, Nature News), where journalist Olive Heffeman reports that “sea levels could rise as much as 1 metre by 2100” and forgets to mention any scientist thinking otherwise.

What makes one of them good, and two bad? Well, if you cannot spot the difference between presenting the scientific debate as it is, and  selecting only the stuff that a journalist deems worth noticing, I am not sure I would be able to help.

%d bloggers like this: